Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 03:28PM

hinault wrote: »

1st century contemporaneous texts, 99% of those texts produced across diverse locations, are textually exactly the same.

No idea where you got that from, but that ain't true at all. There are no text from that period that are exactly the same. Which is to be expected considering they were copied by hand.

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 03:29PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I've not lifted anything from any website. I am simply correcting some of the guff in this thread, and I'm drawing on my past studies to do so (postgraduate in theology and biblical studies).

You are correcting it with a gross misrepresentation of how historical study works. No historian looks simply as the date between claim and when the claim was supposed to have taken place.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:33PM

Mark, not Matthew.

My mistake, thanks for the correction.

Heck, a few posts back you were quite happy to accept that the Acts of Philip existed 1000 years before the earliest manuscript in existence. Why? Because it suited you to do so.

There's a difference between what I meant then and what you and other believers are attempting to do with Q.
I'm okay with the possibility of Acts of Philip being older than the oldest known manuscript, since it's just a story.
However, with Luke, people such as yourself are attempting to pass it off as actual history, that it details events that actually happened. One of the sources for Luke is Q...which we do not have. If you or someone like you is going to attempt to convince me that Luke actually is speaking truthfully about something that DID happen two thousand years ago, I need those sources. I need Q.

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:33PM

silverharp wrote: »

A lot of bluster there but can you deal with the point that miracles like the feeding of the 5000 couldn't possibly have happened because the Jews didn't follow him en masse therefore its added in by believers who needed to show Jesus having supernatural powers

Pointing out your blinkered stereotypical thinking is hardly bluster. I'm quite happy to treat each person on their own merits, rather than lumping them into one based on their religiosity or anything else.

One of the reasons I post on boards.ie is that I harbour a hope (probably naive) that people might actually listen to one another without justing making decisions based on stereotypes and prejudices.

I don't think it's surprising at all that the Jews didn't follow Jesus en masse. It is consistent with what we know about crowds and their behaviour. Jesus did not meet their expectations of what the Messiah would be. the experience of one crowd in Galilee was hardly going to dictate the actions of an entire nation.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Pointing out your blinkered stereotypical thinking is hardly bluster. I'm quite happy to treat each person on their own merits, rather than lumping them into one based on their religiosity or anything else.

One of the reasons I post on boards.ie is that I harbour a hope (probably naive) that people might actually listen to one another without justing making decisions based on stereotypes and prejudices.

I don't think it's surprising at all that the Jews didn't follow Jesus en masse. It is consistent with what we know about crowds and their behaviour. Jesus did not meet their expectations of what the Messiah would be. the experience of one crowd in Galilee was hardly going to dictate the actions of an entire nation.

Don't you think that this speaks AGAINST the claim that he was this miraculous person?
If I visit a town of 10,000 people and I notice that 200 of them think that this one guy can do real magic, that speaks against the claim that he can do magic. If he actually could do magic, he would have been able to convince a lot more than that.

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 03:36PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think most people can see what you're up to and how little you really care about history.

Er, the original charge against yourself was that you accept the text written in the 1st century but not the (clearly ridiculous) text written in the 4th century.

Your argument is that those were closer to the event and that is just how "history works".

It isn't how history works. You accept these not because there is any historically sound reason to, but because they are closer to your religious outlook. You then take a false notion of how historians operate in order to try and make it sound like you are doing nothing other than valid historical study.

So spare use the claims about caring about history.

The people who say this is religious propaganda written with that purpose in mind decades if not centuries after the events, in order to keep a religious movement alive, are the ones carrying about historical accuracy. You believe it because you believe it, but stop pretending that belief is some how supported by historical study, it is insulting to historical study.

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:37PM

TheLurker wrote: »

You are correcting it with a gross misrepresentation of how historical study works. No historian looks simply as the date between claim and when the claim was supposed to have taken place.

Sigh. Every historian would see the date of authorship, and the sources used, as very significant when weighing the respective evidence of two religious sources that purport to describe historical events.

To state that fact is not gross misrepresentation, and it is grossly untruthful of you to make such a false accusation.

Do you want to advance any grounds by which any reputable historian in the world would argue that the 4th Century Acts of Philip should be viewed as being more historically reliable than the 1st Century Gospel of Luke? If so, lay it out there. If not, then please apologise for falsely accusing me of gross misrepresentation.

marienbad · 11-03-2015 03:40PM

Nick Park wrote: »

We know one of the sources was Mark's Gospel, which we know was written before 70AD, and therefore at a time when eye-witnesses of the events described were still accessible. That makes it, historically speaking, of much more value than something that was apparently made up three centuries later.

Another source was almost certainly a document of sayings of Jesus that was utilised by both Matthew and Luke. This document, which scholars call Q, was probably earlier than Mark. Scholarly consensus dates it in the 40s or 50s of the First Century.

So that gives us two sources which, for historians, are very early indeed. The author of Luke also claims to have carefully examined other sources and eye-witness accounts.

Does this document Q exist ?

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:40PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Don't you think that this speaks AGAINST the claim that he was this miraculous person?
If I visit a town of 10,000 people and I notice that 200 of them think that this one guy can do real magic, that speaks against the claim that he can do magic. If he actually could do magic, he would have been able to convince a lot more than that.

What you would think obviously has very little relevance to this discussion, since you have amply demonstrated that you think what suits you, not based on actual evidence.

History is full of people who have demonstrated something to be true, only to be rejected because it conflicted with people's prior expectations of how they thought things should be.

Galileo ring a bell?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:42PM

Nick Park wrote: »

What you would think obviously has very little relevance to this discussion, since you have amply demonstrated that you think what suits you, not based on actual evidence.

History is full of people who have demonstrated something to be true, only to be rejected because it conflicted with people's prior expectations of how they thought things should be.

Galileo ring a bell?

Galileo though provided evidence of his claims, evidence that ANYONE can observe simply by looking through a telescope.
Can we do that for Jesus?

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 03:43PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh. Every historian would see the date of authorship, and the sources used, as very significant when weighing the respective evidence of two religious sources that purport to describe historical events.

Of course they do. But it is one piece of the puzzle and no historian would weight that above the motivations of the person who wrote it.

No historian would look at the time delta to the events at the expense of the motivations of those who wrote the piece. Focusing ONLY on the time delta while pretending that the motivation of the author misrepresenting how history works.

Again this misrepresentation pops up all over the Christian apologetics websites, and it gives a completely unhistoric representation of how reputable historians view the gospels. No historian thinks the gospels are accurate simply because they are closer to the events than other documents. All historians view the gospels in terms of the motivations of the authors, which significantly decreases the historian weight they are given. This fact is always left out of the Christian apologetics version of historical study.

Nick Park wrote: »

Do you want to advance any grounds by which any reputable historian in the world would argue that the 4th Century Acts of Philip should be viewed as being more historically reliable than the 1st Century Gospel of Luke?

No. I think they would view them BOTH as being very historically dubious. Which was the original point. No one was arguing that Philip was historically accuate, they were pointing out the unhistorical hypocracy of dismissing Philip while treating Luke as a serious historical source.

Nick Park wrote: »

If not, then please apologise for falsely accusing me of gross misrepresentation.

You repeated the misrepresentation above.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:45PM

No. I think they would view them BOTH as being very historically dubious. Which was the original point. No one was arguing that Philip was historically accuate, they were pointing out the unhistorical hypocracy of dismissing Philip while treating Luke as a serious historical source.

Thanks. It seems that Nick is another bible studies student I've encountered who simply does not have a full understanding of the rigors of the historical research discipline. If he did, he wouldn't have done that.

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:46PM

marienbad wrote: »

Does this document Q exist ?

No, like thousands of other ancient texts, it is no longer extant. We know of it because it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke utilised a common source (other than Mark). Therefore, based on a science known as textual criticism, most historians agree that it existed.

Ask any historian, this is not an uncommon scenario. We know of many literary works in history based on them being cited by others, even though we no longer possess the texts themselves.

You could think of this as being like scientists who can work out the existence of planets and other astronomical objects based, not on direct observation, but on how their existence affects other objects. (I'm no scientist, but I think this applies to black holes, and certainly applied to the discovery of the planet Neptune).

marienbad · 11-03-2015 03:47PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, like thousands of other ancient texts, it is no longer extant. We know of it because it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke utilised a common source (other than Mark). Therefore, based on a science known as textual criticism, most historians agree that it existed.

Ask any historian, this is not an uncommon scenario. We know of many literary works in history based on them being cited by others, even though we no longer possess the texts themselves.

You could think of this as being like scientists who can work out the existence of planets and other astronomical objects based, not on direct observation, but on how their existence affects other objects. (I'm no scientist, but I think this applies to black holes, and certainly applied to the discovery of the planet Neptune).

So when was the existence of this document arrived at ?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:47PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, like thousands of other ancient texts, it is no longer extant. We know of it because it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke utilised a common source (other than Mark). Therefore, based on a science known as textual criticism, most historians agree that it existed.

Ask any historian, this is not an uncommon scenario. We know of many literary works in history based on them being cited by others, even though we no longer possess the texts themselves.

You could think of this as being like scientists who can work out the existence of planets and other astronomical objects based, not on direct observation, but on how their existence affects other objects. (I'm no scientist, but I think this applies to black holes, and certainly applied to the discovery of the planet Neptune).

Neither Luke or Matthew though have the full text of Q. Nor have I seen in your posts any recognition of the problem of Q's disappearance. It's almost like the fact that it's not extant simply doesn't matter to you.

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:48PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Thanks. It seems that Nick is another bible studies student I've encountered who simply does not have a full understanding of the rigors of the historical research discipline. If he did, he wouldn't have done that.

Ah, now you're just acting the maggot. Genuine historians do not treat Luke as equal in historical value to the 4th Century Acts of Philip. They would not see Luke as being 100% accurate, but they would certainly see it as more historically accurate. To insult me, based on a misrepresentation, says more about you than it does about me.

hinault · 11-03-2015 03:49PM

orubiru wrote: »

OK but you seemed to be saying that a COPY of St Lukes gospel in Rome matches a COPY of the same gospel in other parts of the world.

No.

I'm saying that manuscripts containing the exact same text, written contemperaneously, in diverse locations, separated by hundred (thousands) of miles from each other in the first century.

How do you explain this given the logistical circumstances that pertained (scarcity of ink/papyrus, few if any people being able to read/write, communication of the gospel orally but transcribed exactly textually across diverse locations) in the 1st century?

Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the fact that, for example, St Marks gospel written in Rome in 1st century, appears to be textually exactly the same as St Marks gospel written at the same time in Antioch, or Palestine, or Libya, that this is a incredible given the logistical hurdles?

On a separate point, no one can say if any of those surviving texts are the original gospel manuscripts. The thinking is that they are copies of an original document called the gospel. And I accept that.

However this doesn't take away from the fact that each copy, each edition, each manuscript, of St.Marks gospel hand written in one location is a textual replica of St Marks gospel written at the same time hundred of miles away.

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:51PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Neither Luke or Matthew though have the full text of Q. Nor have I seen in your posts any recognition of the problem of Q's disappearance. It's almost like the fact that it's not extant simply doesn't matter to you.

The disappearance of a document from nearly 2000 years ago is not a problem. It is what happened to over 99% of documents from that era. You do realise that, don't you?

And no-one claimed that we have the full text of Q. The argument was that it is evidence of Luke drawing on earlier sources, and that is historically significant, particularly when we compare it with the Acts of Philip.

marienbad · 11-03-2015 03:52PM

hinault wrote: »

No.

I'm saying that manuscripts containing the exact same text, written contemperaneously, in diverse locations, separated by hundred (thousands) of miles from each other in the first century.

How do you explain this given the logistical circumstances that pertained (scarcity of ink/papyrus, few if any people being able to read/write, communication of the gospel orally but transcribed exactly textually across diverse locations) in the 1st century?

Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the fact that, for example, St Marks gospel written in Rome in 1st century, appears to be textually exactly the same as St Marks gospel written at the same time in Antioch, or Palestine, or Libya, that this is a incredible given the logistical hurdles?

On a separate point, no one can say if any of those surviving texts are the original gospel manuscripts. The thinking is that they are copies of an original document called the gospel. And I accept that.

However this doesn't take away from the fact that each copy, each edition, each manuscript, of St.Marks gospel hand written in one location is a textual replica of St Marks gospel written at the same time hundred of miles away.

You are attaching way to much significance to the 'logistical hurdles'' as you call them ,this was the Roman world and not the stone ages

Nick Park · 11-03-2015 03:53PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Er, the original charge against yourself was that you accept the text written in the 1st century but not the (clearly ridiculous) text written in the 4th century.

No, the original charge was that you cannot treat the 4th Century Acts of Philip as equal in historical value to the Gospel of Luke.

I have, at no point in this discussion, argued that anyone should accept the Gospel of Luke as true.

Please address what I post, not what you would like this discussion to be about.

hinault · 11-03-2015 03:54PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Please address what I post, not what you would like this discussion to be about.

I've noticed this too.

hinault · 11-03-2015 03:57PM

marienbad wrote: »

You are attaching way to much significance to the 'logistical hurdles'' as you call them ,this was the Roman world and not the stone ages

I disagree.

Can you cite other texts within the region controlled by the Roman Empire, produced throughout diverse locations in that region during the 1st century which replicate exactly their textual content?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 03:58PM

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

Can you cite other texts within the region controlled by the Roman Empire, produced throughout diverse locations in that region during the 1st century which replicate exactly their textual content?

Your point? Even if there are no other such documents, how does this somehow render the gospels as being true?
Also, you have yet to provide us with these documents that are the exact same. Earlier today, I pointed out how many manuscripts of Luke don't agree with each other (they leave out Gethsemene) but you just completely ignored this and have continued to repeat the logistical problems, which has been refuted.

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 04:00PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the original charge was that you cannot treat the 4th Century Acts of Philip as equal in historical value to the Gospel of Luke.

I have, at no point in this discussion, argued that anyone should accept the Gospel of Luke as true.

Please address what I post, not what you would like this discussion to be about.

*sigh*

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So someone writing about miraculous killings of 7,000 men 200-300 years after the events supposedly took place is not reliable in your view. Okay.
But someone writing about a man who can do all sorts of things, up to and including rising from the dead a handful of decades after the events supposedly took place...somehow that's reliable in your view.

If your original point was neither are reliable I'll happy retract my statement

hinault · 11-03-2015 04:02PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Your point?

Marian thinks that there were no logistical hurdles.

If her point is accurate, she'll have no difficulty identifying other documents that were produced under the same conditions, from the same time period, from the same region, that replicate exactly their textual content.

That's my point, Rik.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 04:02PM

I have, at no point in this discussion, argued that anyone should accept the Gospel of Luke as true.

Do you need to say things like this flat out? Can we not infer that this is your view, this is what you belief, based on what you say here?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 04:04PM

hinault wrote: »

Marian thinks that there were no logistical hurdles.

If her point is accurate, she'll have no difficulty identifying other documents that were produced under the same conditions, from the same time period, from the same region, that replicate exactly their textual content.

That's my point, Rik.

I'd like for you to identify and provide here these documents, dated from the 1st century, which all have the same textual content.
At least for Luke, which earlier you stated does have this, I have since proven you wrong. Not all Luke manuscripts contain Gethsemene.

hinault · 11-03-2015 04:04PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do you need to say things like this flat out? Can we not infer that this is your view, this is what you belief, based on what you say here?

You'll infer regardless. That's what you tend to do, Rik.

hinault · 11-03-2015 04:05PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'd like for you to identify and provide here these documents, dated from the 1st century, which all have the same textual content.

You don't accept that these documents exist, Rik?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 04:07PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept that these documents exist, Rik?

They probably exist, but I don't believe your claim that they are textually the same. Which is why I want evidence. I can't believe this claim unless I'm provided these documents to examine.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments